9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (3) TMI 476 - SC - Indian LawsTermination of service - Held that - The position, the decisions of the learned Single Judge on the quantum of punishment and of the Division Bench regarding alleged violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be maintained and are, therefore, set aside. The inevitable conclusion is that the order of dismissal and passed by the Appellant-Bank does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal is accordingly allowed, but with no order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Proportionality of the punishment imposed. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The main contention in this appeal is the correctness of the Kerala High Court's judgment, which held that the order directing the respondent's dismissal from service violated the principles of natural justice. The High Court observed that the Disciplinary Authority did not properly apply its mind to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the imposition of punishment. The High Court allowed the respondent to make a detailed representation to the Disciplinary Authority and directed that the period during which the respondent was out of service be treated as a period under suspension, with subsistence allowance paid. The appellant argued that the show-cause notice issued on 2-7-1992 was served on the respondent on 6-8-1992, and 15 days were granted for filing a response. The order was passed on 17-8-1992. The respondent did not raise any ground regarding the violation of natural justice in his appeal before the Appellate Authority. It was contended that no prejudice was caused to the respondent, and the Division Bench's view on the violation of natural justice could not be maintained. The respondent's counsel argued that prejudice need not be pleaded specifically and that the violation of natural justice was apparent. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent did not raise any ground related to the violation of natural justice in the appeal or during the personal hearing. Additionally, there was no material to show how the respondent was prejudiced. The Court referred to the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, which emphasized that non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report would not automatically vitiate the order of punishment unless it caused prejudice. The Court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice in this case. 2. Proportionality of the Punishment Imposed: The High Court's Single Judge held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct proved. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the scope of judicial review in matters of punishment is limited. The Court referred to various judgments, including the Wednesbury case, which established that judicial review is permissible only if the order is contrary to law, relevant factors were not considered, irrelevant factors were considered, or the decision was one that no reasonable person could have taken. The Supreme Court cited the case of Om Kumar v. Union of India, which discussed the principle of proportionality and its application in administrative law. The Court noted that in cases involving disciplinary actions, the Wednesbury principles apply, and the court's role is secondary. The primary judgment on the reasonableness of the punishment lies with the administrative authority. The Court also referred to B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, which stated that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have exclusive power to consider evidence and impose appropriate punishment. The High Court or Tribunal cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on the penalty. The Supreme Court concluded that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate, given the serious misconduct committed by the respondent. The charges against the respondent were amply proved, and the Disciplinary Authority's decision was justified. The Court set aside the decisions of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench regarding the quantum of punishment and the alleged violation of natural justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate. The order of dismissal passed by the Appellant-Bank was upheld.
|
